If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I fear you're right, the country is in jeopardy of falling in the next few decades, but it will not be because of states rights, or gun laws. It will be as Alexander Tyler said in the early 1700's:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simple cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

That might be true, except for the "voting" part. It's more like "buying," and it's not the majority of the voting populace that's doing it. It's the banks, defense contractors and international corporations--- the people who fund the electoral campaigns. The voters get squat nine times out of ten. Just look as HSBC, the international banking corporation, which just THIS MONTH was written off scott-free for violating the Trading With The Enemy Act, among other federal and international laws, making billions off of drug deals, money laundering and direct funding of foreign terrorist activity. This is what the Department of Justice said in their official statement, explaining why they won't prosecute:

"Had the US authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking licence in the US, the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilised.

"HSBC, Britain's biggest bank, said it was 'profoundly sorry' for what it called 'past mistakes' that allowed terrorists and narcotics traffickers to move billions around the financial system and circumvent US banking laws. . . .

"As part of the deal, HSBC has undertaken a five-year agreement with the US department of justice under which it will install an independent monitor to assess reformed internal controls. The bank's top executives will defer part of their bonuses for the whole of the five-year period, while bonuses have been clawed back from a number of former and current executives, including those in the US directly involved at the time."

And not long before that, we had Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, who lost billions (estimates are between 2 and 5 billion) in risky gambling, dealt a huge blow to the economy, and is still sitting Chair of the Board of Federal Reserve because he is defended as "the best banker they've got."

These people pay NO price for their mistakes and crimes. How many years in prison do you think a normal citizen would get if they were found to be part of an international drug ring and money laundering scandal? Or if they were found to be funding foreign terrorists against the US? Or if they were trading with the enemy in violation of international law? Or if they lost 2-5 BILLION dollars of investors' money? It's ridiculous to say that the citizenry has any real say in the decisions which most drastically affect our economy; we have influence, but it's slow and clumsy, and it works from the bottom up (from the local level to the federal level); banks and major corporations/contractors can influence elections directly by using massive amounts of capital to sway officials who are *already elected* (and thus beyond the people's immediate influence), or even influence candidates as they're running by threatening to overfund their opponent's campaign if they don't take the "right side."

A prime example of this is the Obama/Biden campaign --- Biden can be quoted from the debates, just a month prior to election day, as saying, "Mark my words: we will NOT TOUCH Social Security and Medicare!" And yet, look what's happening: not only are they trying to cut Social Security, but this plan was proposed by Obama. If you vote for a candidate in principle, there's no guarantee that you will actually get what you voted for because, as soon as he or she takes office, he or she can just flip-flop and do whatever his or her donors want. To ascribe responsibility to the people alone for this deception is just dishonest; the people can do more to monitor and learn the true views of their elected officials, but they can only do so much --- there comes a point where politicians need to be taken to task for their betrayal of trust.

This meme of "the people voting themselves benefits" is nothing more than a PR scam by libertarians and Tea Party Republicans, to try to detract blame from the real flaws in this system, which is that money --- not the people --- control the system in the ways that matter the most --- and instead convince the people who are being cheated the most to blame each other for petty differences.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

You are still viewing things through an extremely idealistic lens. I agree that what you described sounds all sunshine and flowers, and like I said, some libertarians* have some lovely sounding ideas... but the truth is, they're about as based in reality and as considerate of human nature as communism. Let's look at some facts.

Start with post-WWI Germany. They had a weak central/federal government at the time. Their government was pretty localized then, and it gave Hitler and the Nazis a chance to gain control. You weaken a country's central government, and some assholes will shove their way in. Russia was similar - people started to overly question the Czars (not that I'm opposed to questioning the govt - we should ALWAYS be questioning the govt. It just went too far in Russia), and the central government was extremely weakened, allowing the Bolsheviks and then the Communists the ability to storm in and take over. Our strong central government kept us going in lieu of the Kennedy assassination. Most countries that have been taken over by dictators and such previously had weak central governments, with things more localized.

Also, our state politicians aren't any better than the feds - they'd be federal workers in a MINUTE if they could get in. What on earth makes you think state politicians would run things so much better?? If you believe government is bad, your idea merely trades one set of evil for another. We'd just end up with 50 states that are each terribly fucked up in their own way, rather than one country that's fucked up more or less the same.

Do you think states should be able to decide the citizenship status of newborns? I've heard this thrown around by lots of libertarians, and it makes sense going along with libertarian theory. I'm a citizen of the US, not of Wisconsin or Minnesota. Gay marriage laws and gun laws differing between states is pretty dumb, too, and so are abortion laws. So let's say you live in Mississippi, where gays wouldn't be able to get married, guns would be easy to get, and abortion would be outlawed. People in Mississippi would cross over to another state to get abortions - that baby is still "murdered" and you've gained nothing. Gays in Mississippi would do the same - that marriage still happened and you've gained nothing. Criminals in states with strict gun laws would cross the border to get guns with ease and come back to shoot up a storm. Regardless, though, I don't really care that much if those laws differ between states... but if those laws are different, where's the line? Who decides which laws are federal and which are up to the states? If we put such a weak central government in charge who decides things like that and gives the states tons of freedom, that government will quickly be overthrown by power-hungry dictators and wannabe-Soviets. That's the bottom line. The libertarian party members want to all but do away with the military - I'm for ending the wars we're in and decreasing defense spending a certain amount, but not to the level that libertarians want to. I'm not afraid of how it'd look to terrorists or whatever, but I'm afraid of how it'd look to organizations within our country who aggressively want power.

*Some libertarians really do have good ideas - I like some of Gary Johnson's ideas. But I can't accept the whole package because our country would be destroyed.

Oh, and the country is dividing more and more between the conservatives and liberals (I like how you tried to twist to put the blame on the liberals, when it's simply strife between the two). If we give each state so much power to do what they want, we WILL no longer view ourselves as Americans. Look at the ending of ANY large union or empire in the past - one of the first steps toward collapse is the people no longer viewing themselves as one. If I become a Minnesotan and my family becomes Wisconsinites, and we're no longer just Americans, that is a nail in the coffin for our country.

You are still viewing things through an extremely idealistic lens. I agree that what you described sounds all sunshine and flowers, and like I said, some libertarians* have some lovely sounding ideas... but the truth is, they're about as based in reality and as considerate of human nature as communism. Let's look at some facts.

Ok, lets
but I have to question , is liberalism considerate of human nature?

Start with post-WWI Germany. They had a weak central/federal government at the time. Their government was pretty localized then, and it gave Hitler and the Nazis a chance to gain control. You weaken a country's central government, and some assholes will shove their way in. Russia was similar - people started to overly question the Czars (not that I'm opposed to questioning the govt - we should ALWAYS be questioning the govt. It just went too far in Russia), and the central government was extremely weakened, allowing the Bolsheviks and then the Communists the ability to storm in and take over. Our strong central government kept us going in lieu of the Kennedy assassination. Most countries that have been taken over by dictators and such previously had weak central governments, with things more localized.

Post WWI Germany is a terrible analogy, remember something called the Treaty of Versailles? Although you have hit on the reasons the founders made sure the right to keep and bear arms was the second thing on their list that the STATES could not infringe on.

The US, after the war of Independence is a better analogy, except, it worked out fine.

4 US presidents have been assassinated, only Kennedy, during our experiment with an overly bloated central federal government. The country has always kept going.

Also, our state politicians aren't any better than the feds - they'd be federal workers in a MINUTE if they could get in. What on earth makes you think state politicians would run things so much better?? If you believe government is bad, your idea merely trades one set of evil for another. We'd just end up with 50 states that are each terribly fucked up in their own way, rather than one country that's fucked up more or less the same.

No, you are correct here, they aren't any better, but at the state level, the voter has more power to keep their shenanigans in check. And we have them now (state politicians), why give more power to another level of idiots?

Do you think states should be able to decide the citizenship status of newborns? I've heard this thrown around by lots of libertarians, and it makes sense going along with libertarian theory. I'm a citizen of the US, not of Wisconsin or Minnesota. Gay marriage laws and gun laws differing between states is pretty dumb, too, and so are abortion laws. So let's say you live in Mississippi, where gays wouldn't be able to get married, guns would be easy to get, and abortion would be outlawed. People in Mississippi would cross over to another state to get abortions - that baby is still "murdered" and you've gained nothing. Gays in Mississippi would do the same - that marriage still happened and you've gained nothing. Criminals in states with strict gun laws would cross the border to get guns with ease and come back to shoot up a storm. Regardless, though, I don't really care that much if those laws differ between states... but if those laws are different, where's the line? Who decides which laws are federal and which are up to the states? If we put such a weak central government in charge who decides things like that and gives the states tons of freedom, that government will quickly be overthrown by power-hungry dictators and wannabe-Soviets. That's the bottom line. The libertarian party members want to all but do away with the military - I'm for ending the wars we're in and decreasing defense spending a certain amount, but not to the level that libertarians want to. I'm not afraid of how it'd look to terrorists or whatever, but I'm afraid of how it'd look to organizations within our country who aggressively want power.

All of these are CLEARLY delineated in the US Constitution.

I am not against abortion, I think it is a Woman's prerogative, but that doesn't mean I should be able to force my morals on someone in the bible belt, anymore than I want them telling me what to do.

The military IS one of the duties of the Federal government.

Again, this isn't some new concept, until the 1920's or so (with a few hiccups in there), what I am speaking of IS the way this country has worked.

*Some libertarians really do have good ideas - I like some of Gary Johnson's ideas. But I can't accept the whole package because our country would be destroyed.

I cannot speak to Gary Johnson's ideas, as I do not know all of them, again, what I am speaking of is the principles that the founders of this country used, those ideas that did not destroy this country, but made it great.

Oh, and the country is dividing more and more between the conservatives and liberals (I like how you tried to twist to put the blame on the liberals, when it's simply strife between the two). If we give each state so much power to do what they want, we WILL no longer view ourselves as Americans. Look at the ending of ANY large union or empire in the past - one of the first steps toward collapse is the people no longer viewing themselves as one. If I become a Minnesotan and my family becomes Wisconsinites, and we're no longer just Americans, that is a nail in the coffin for our country.

There has been strife between states since the beginning.

I'm not sure why you think that the states need more power than they already have, I'm just suggesting that the federal government get rolled back to the roll it was designed to have.

I don't know why you'd want to become a Minnesotan though, we Sconnies are WAY better people! Go Pack!

That might be true, except for the "voting" part. It's more like "buying," and it's not the majority of the voting populace that's doing it. It's the banks, defense contractors and international corporations--- the people who fund the electoral campaigns. The voters get squat nine times out of ten. Just look as HSBC, the international banking corporation, which just THIS MONTH was written off scott-free for violating the Trading With The Enemy Act, among other federal and international laws, making billions off of drug deals, money laundering and direct funding of foreign terrorist activity. This is what the Department of Justice said in their official statement, explaining why they won't prosecute:

And not long before that, we had Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, who lost billions (estimates are between 2 and 5 billion) in risky gambling, dealt a huge blow to the economy, and is still sitting Chair of the Board of Federal Reserve because he is defended as "the best banker they've got."

These people pay NO price for their mistakes and crimes. How many years in prison do you think a normal citizen would get if they were found to be part of an international drug ring and money laundering scandal? Or if they were found to be funding foreign terrorists against the US? Or if they were trading with the enemy in violation of international law? Or if they lost 2-5 BILLION dollars of investors' money? It's ridiculous to say that the citizenry has any real say in the decisions which most drastically affect our economy; we have influence, but it's slow and clumsy, and it works from the bottom up (from the local level to the federal level); banks and major corporations/contractors can influence elections directly by using massive amounts of capital to sway officials who are *already elected* (and thus beyond the people's immediate influence), or even influence candidates as they're running by threatening to overfund their opponent's campaign if they don't take the "right side."

A prime example of this is the Obama/Biden campaign --- Biden can be quoted from the debates, just a month prior to election day, as saying, "Mark my words: we will NOT TOUCH Social Security and Medicare!" And yet, look what's happening: not only are they trying to cut Social Security, but this plan was proposed by Obama. If you vote for a candidate in principle, there's no guarantee that you will actually get what you voted for because, as soon as he or she takes office, he or she can just flip-flop and do whatever his or her donors want. To ascribe responsibility to the people alone for this deception is just dishonest; the people can do more to monitor and learn the true views of their elected officials, but they can only do so much --- there comes a point where politicians need to be taken to task for their betrayal of trust.

This meme of "the people voting themselves benefits" is nothing more than a PR scam by libertarians and Tea Party Republicans, to try to detract blame from the real flaws in this system, which is that money --- not the people --- control the system in the ways that matter the most --- and instead convince the people who are being cheated the most to blame each other for petty differences.

Really?

Money controls the system? What the hell do you think money is? It isn't money that controls the system, it is people, and people suck, which is why I cannot understand how having power located further away for YOU the VOTER, could possibly be considered a good thing.

On one hand politicians are bad, evil, corrupt, money grubbing, and unaccountable, but then in the next breath, the wheels of the train would come off if we don't give them more power?! Hell, lets let them control the health care industry!

It wasn't until the FEDERAL government got big, that big companies moved into Washington. Lobbying wasn't the issue it is today.

Social Security, IS one of the benefits people have voted themselves. It IS a Ponzi in the most literal use of the word. But it isn't just Social Security, it is what comprises 62% of federal spending, buying votes by promising free shit, paid for by money the Federal government takes (by threat of force) from others. It is THE reason we will be going over the real fiscal cliff. People have voted for the people promising them free shit, and while their happy to give up YOUR free shit, dont even speak of getting rid of (or cutting) their free shit.

What's more I am not even against these entitlement programs, if they came at the state level, where the state will pay the price if it promises more than it can deliver, but we are on the precipice of proving Mr Tyler correct, or an economic correction that will probably become WW3 as foreign debtors will not like the amount of debasing of our currency that would be required. (not to mention the huge screwing the poor will get when inflation REALLY comes to town)

Ok, lets
but I have to question , is liberalism considerate of human nature?

Before I attempt to answer that, what, in your opinion, is "liberalism"? It's such a vague term with so many different meanings that I need to make sure we agree on what it is before I answer that.

Post WWI Germany is a terrible analogy, remember something called the Treaty of Versailles? Although you have hit on the reasons the founders made sure the right to keep and bear arms was the second thing on their list that the STATES could not infringe on.

You really think a bunch of handguns and shotguns and stuff could protect the people against a tyrannical government? Look at what the military has - tanks and bombs and shit. Good luck with that one...

The Treaty of Versailles made Germany give up their colonies and reduce their military presence. The Treaty of Versailles was not responsible for Hitler and the Nazis coming into power.

The US, after the war of Independence is a better analogy, except, it worked out fine.

Because the US was a brand new country. Look at history a little better... countries throughout history have often started off with smaller governments, but as the country grows and more problems come up, more government is necessary. The US just didn't grow their government at the same rate as other advanced countries, and unsurprisingly, we pretty much have the most problems in the developed world.

4 US presidents have been assassinated, only Kennedy, during our experiment with an overly bloated central federal government. The country has always kept going.

Kennedy was the only one assassinated post-world wars, after the country got through its biggest unifying fights and was of a considerably large size. McKinley was assassinated at a time when there were only 77 million people in the US - the size of Germany. 52 million when Garfield was assassinated. Totally different ballgame at those times.

No, you are correct here, they aren't any better, but at the state level, the voter has more power to keep their shenanigans in check. And we have them now (state politicians), why give more power to another level of idiots?

Because we are ONE COUNTRY. The closest thing the world has ever seen to a libertarian government is Somalia, and nobody wants that because it's horribly unsuccessful.

I am not against abortion, I think it is a Woman's prerogative, but that doesn't mean I should be able to force my morals on someone in the bible belt, anymore than I want them telling me what to do.

So liberals in the bible belt should be forced to follow anti-abortionist laws unless they're willing to leave their lives behind and move hundreds of miles to another state and hope they can find a job? Conservatives in the north should have to live under legal abortion unless they're willing to do the same? I fail to see how this is a good solution, and the fact that it's somewhat easier to move to a new state than a new country isn't enough to make up for all the problems it would cause to have a super weak federal govt.

Again, this isn't some new concept, until the 1920's or so (with a few hiccups in there), what I am speaking of IS the way this country has worked.[/quote]
And again, when it was the size of Germany and smaller it worked.

There sure has, but not like it is now. The American people used to be united as Americans. When bad things happened to the country, people used to feel like "we" had been attacked or whatever. Now people want to blame the other side. They are no longer united.

I'm not sure why you think that the states need more power than they already have, I'm just suggesting that the federal government get rolled back to the roll it was designed to have.

I have enough friends who work for the government to know that nothing would EVER get done without a huge increase in state government if the federal government was reduced. They have a hard enough time getting anything done as it is.

I don't know why you'd want to become a Minnesotan though, we Sconnies are WAY better people! Go Pack!

Grew up in Wisconsin, moved to Minnesota at the age of 19 and stayed there for 6 years. I hate Wisconsin and consider myself a Minnesotan. The Packers are probably the only thing I like about Wisconsin - there has to be SOMETHING to make living in that awful state more tolerable

Money controls the system? What the hell do you think money is? It isn't money that controls the system, it is people, and people suck, which is why I cannot understand how having power located further away for YOU the VOTER, could possibly be considered a good thing.

Yes, money controls the system. More directly, money controls the flow of information --- buying ads costs money, buying airtime costs money, buying internet URLs and radio plugs costs money. The internet --- which most people just assume is free --- also costs money to operate, and is run largely by corporations with a profit motive. Running a campaign costs money, getting your name out there costs money, and defending yourself against allegations costs money --- it doesn't matter how genuine and good your position is, if the other guy is the one who gets to paint the public image of you. People only have whatever information you or your opponent release about yourself, and if your opponent is in control of what people know about you (because he or she has more money to spend disseminating that information), then you're at a severe disadvantage. You can point out that people vote, and therefore it's all the people's fault, but the people only vote based on the information they have, and if very rich people are spending billions of dollars disseminating conflicting information (and otherwise doing everything they can to obfuscate the issues), it makes it very difficult for a voter to make informed decisions.

In 2010 -- which is not only the most recent election year but also the year specifically cited in the sign -- the percentage of big-money winners in U.S. House races was actually 85 percent, or nine points lower. And the percentages of U.S. Senate seats and state legislative seats won by the deeper-pocketed candidate have been consistently lower in recent election cycles.

Libertarians tend to dismiss this aspect of the equation, because they think information is cheap and easy to come by --- like fundamentalist religious people, they are quick to say, "Alex Jones and Glenn Beck told you the truth, so why didn't you listen?", and if you don't pay unquestioning loyalty unto such personalities, then you're just "looking away from the truth." Another reason I despise libertarians as a whole --- they don't seem to give much of a flip about whether their information is genuine or not, they only care that it's what they want to hear. I'm a bit of a skeptic myself, and so even if I hear something I *want* to believe, I still feel the need to follow through and make sure it's real, and not just settle for a confirmation bias.

On one hand politicians are bad, evil, corrupt, money grubbing, and unaccountable, but then in the next breath, the wheels of the train would come off if we don't give them more power?! Hell, lets let them control the health care industry!

Get a feel for some nuance, bruh. Where did I say anything about politicians being the good guys, or deserving more power? They're just as much to blame for this (for taking donations from special interest groups, and pandering to them instead of the people) as corporations and special interest groups are.

It wasn't until the FEDERAL government got big, that big companies moved into Washington. Lobbying wasn't the issue it is today.

There were several states in our union that had to pass amendments to their state constitutions because corporations owned the state government. Corporate corruption has been around as long as corporations and governments have existed; this predates America by a longshot.

Social Security, IS one of the benefits people have voted themselves. It IS a Ponzi in the most literal use of the word.

You are completely wrong. Social Security is paid for, in full, completely, by the Social Security tax levied off of every single working American's income tax payment, and off of a certain (low) percentage of corporate tax revenue. It is paid for beforehand, it takes no money from any other government program, and it has nothing to do with the deficit (don't believe me? Ask Ronald Reagan, that famed "liberal fascist" what-have-you).

It is THE reason we will be going over the real fiscal cliff.

There's your problem. "The Fiscal Cliff" is a Republican libertarian fantasy. It's a fiscal hill. All that will happen is some automatic defense spending cuts will go into effect (which is good --- none of those cuts actually come from support for troops or necessities, but rather wasteful spending on military contractors, for things like building planes that the Air Force didn't request and that won't be used), and some corporate tax rates will return to the levels they used to be at before Bush Jr. was elected; it's a fallacy that this money will be "taken out of the economy" because it's going towards higher taxes for corporations making over $200,000/year, which (according to libertarians and Republicans) is going towards social programs anyway, which primarily affect the middle class, which means the middle class will have increased purchasing power, which means the economy will be stronger. You've fallen for the sham hook, line and sinker:

Deal or no deal, many investors don't expect the effects of the "fiscal cliff" to linger in the stock market for too long. One big reason is that everyone has seen it coming for months.

"We're not overly concerned," says David Hefty, CEO of Hefty Wealth Partners in Auburn, Ind. "The thing to keep in mind is that what hurts investors, what hurts the market, are things that are unexpected."

He adds: "Everybody has 2008 burned into their minds. They think the fiscal cliff will be the next 2008 event. A 2008 event is when nobody sees it coming, and everyone is blindsided. Nobody's going to be blindsided by this."

Hefty says he'll watch whether the Federal Reserve continues its policy of pumping money into the economy, and fundamentals like housing and unemployment, to decide how to invest in 2013.

"We're looking at two key things that matter the most," he says. "The 'fiscal cliff' isn't one of them."

What's more I am not even against these entitlement programs, if they came at the state level, where the state will pay the price if it promises more than it can deliver

Ah, the "perspective fallacy." In reality, what you point out here is a fundamental flaw of *any* heirarchical government, be it local, district, state, federal or international: the National government makes promises it can't deliver, so it borrows from foreign countries, okay; the Federal government makes promises at the state level that it can't deliver, so it borrows from other states; if we had states and no federal government, states would make decisions at the district level that it couldn't deliver, and so it would borrow from other districts, and the districts would have the same complaints about the state government that you have now about the federal government; if we had only districts, then the districts would make promises at the local and city level that it couldn't deliver, and it would just borrow from other local areas.

It's a valid criticism. But state government is subject to the same criticism.

Last edited by Static_Martyr; 12-25-2012 at 06:46 AM.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

Before I attempt to answer that, what, in your opinion, is "liberalism"? It's such a vague term with so many different meanings that I need to make sure we agree on what it is before I answer that.

Modern liberalism, not classical liberalism. In a nutshell, socialism light.

You really think a bunch of handguns and shotguns and stuff could protect the people against a tyrannical government? Look at what the military has - tanks and bombs and shit. Good luck with that one...

Good to be back on topic, exactly why I oppose the proposed ban, and exactly why the argument that the 2nd amendment was wrote with muskets in mind is a crock of hooey

The Treaty of Versailles made Germany give up their colonies and reduce their military presence. The Treaty of Versailles was not responsible for Hitler and the Nazis coming into power.

You may want to read up on that one. It was the Treat of Versailles that put them into such a poor position that a Hitler was possible. WAY too many points to make on this one, so I'll just say that there is no way to stretch history enough to say that small government and not the conditions inflicted with the Treaty of Versailles, on Germany, caused Hitler.

Because the US was a brand new country. Look at history a little better... countries throughout history have often started off with smaller governments, but as the country grows and more problems come up, more government is necessary. The US just didn't grow their government at the same rate as other advanced countries, and unsurprisingly, we pretty much have the most problems in the developed world.

I'm not sure what problems you mean. What is odd though, is that I find myself thinking, that what I am arguing for is closer to what we have now, and you actually think there should be a stronger Federal government, or maybe getting rid of state governments.

Most of our problems have come about BECAUSE of a bigger federal government. Certainly the national debt did.

Because we are ONE COUNTRY. The closest thing the world has ever seen to a libertarian government is Somalia, and nobody wants that because it's horribly unsuccessful.

Again, I am not arguing for a libertarian government. I am arguing for CLASSICAL liberalism, or in other words, back to our constitution.

So liberals in the bible belt should be forced to follow anti-abortionist laws unless they're willing to leave their lives behind and move hundreds of miles to another state and hope they can find a job? Conservatives in the north should have to live under legal abortion unless they're willing to do the same? I fail to see how this is a good solution, and the fact that it's somewhat easier to move to a new state than a new country isn't enough to make up for all the problems it would cause to have a super weak federal govt.

So if the majority in Alabama believe abortion is murder, they should have to leave their country because California, and New York don't? It's a damn sight better solution than moving to a different country.

Somewhat easier? I am an Arizona native, I have lived in California, Colorado, Arkansas, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin as well. While the laws are slightly different between them, it is nothing like an ex-pat attempting to live in another country, where from country to country the laws can, and usually are, dramatically different.

Anyway, this discussion has moved FAR away from the topic, so to the OP I am sorry.